Thursday, January 28, 2010

"The 9/11 Hoax: Pondering Questions of Strategy & Opportunity"

[some more 911"Food for thought" enjoy!- onebornfree]

"The 9/11 Hoax: Pondering Questions of Strategy & Opportunity"

By Simon Shack, January 11, 2010

One question which naturally emerges from the study of the 9/11 memorials is : “Even if many ‘victims’ identities appear to be entirely made up by a computer database, could it still mean that a number of real people were killed on 9/11?"

Or did 9/11 claim no victims at all?

If we are to apply a logical thought-process to this particular issue, we need to look at questions of strategy and opportunity which the perpetrators must have prefigured. Surely, any sensible investigation must start by defining the type of crime that is being investigated. By defining the scope and the objectives of the crime, we should be able to rule out what the perpetrators themselves would have ruled out, in terms of unnecessary risks and liabilites. Was 9/11 designed as a barbaric murdering spree or was it more of a gigantic bank robbery? Let us make an’ educated guess’ and say that the latter is the case.

Bank robberies are considered terrible failures by the robbers themselves in the event of any bystander, guard/police officer getting killed; the sole objective of a bank assault is that of stealing money – never that of commiting murder. The penal aggravations of manslaughter is most unwelcome to any professional gangster – a grave mistake to be carefully avoided.
To be sure, there was no ‘added-value’ for the 9/11 perpetrators to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals. As we have seen, a large amount of alleged “victims” appear to be mock-up identities. Of course, precisely how many remains to be verified. Yet, consider this: if 300 deposit-boxes are emptied by a gang of bank robbers and fingerprints are found in just thirty boxes, would they be suspected only for robbing those thirty? Or would a court of law assume that they also robbed the other 270?

The idea that nobody was killed on 9/11 is, usually and predictably, rejected offhand by many folks as ‘outrageous’ or ‘unbelievable’. Others will accept that some simulation took place - but that a number of real people must have died. So let us imagine an ’intermediate’ scenario of, say, 1000 people being killed that day. If this were true, an immediate problem emerges: what if those 1000 families, at some stage, discovered that the other 2000 families were untraceable/non-existent? It is quite unlikely that the 9/11 planners would have run the risk of such a dire, worst-case scenario: Imagine a horde of angry families filing an avalanche of executive court orders, all demanding access to public records and official verifications! Truly a recipe for disaster… Surely, the 9/11 plotters didn’t want any of that? Thus, we may reasonably assume that every precaution was taken to ensure that NO civilian lawsuits might ‘spoil the show’; in all logic, the assassination of any number of people on 9/11 was a definite no-no, a stupid and senseless aggravation to be avoided at all costs. The chief directive of the Grand 9/11 Deception plan may well have been: “Zero casualties”.


The almost unlimited resources of the 9/11 planners allowed for a multifaceted simulation which certainly involved a great many people by any conspiracy standards – only a few of which needed to be fully briefed about all details of the plan. A recurring objection skeptics keep raising is that “too many people had to be involved, therefore it would have been impossible to keep them all quiet.” Not so. Allow me to set forth a brief personal perspective on this issue: As the son of an idealist Norwegian sociologist who pluckily ‘fought’ the Sicilian Mafia with a typewriter, I often like to remind people of the concept of “omertà”; in Sicily, tens of thousands of honest citizens know perfectly well the names and whereabouts of the Mafia bosses – yet they are kept silent for decades with bribes and fear. Historically – and this is a nigh but undeniable fact - cold cash and hot threats have never failed to put a lid on people’s mouths.

A limited number of people were needed to pull off the 9/11 hoax – a hoax which relied on an incalculably larger budget than any smalltown Mafia hit. Needless to say, the US executive branch also firmly controls all key government-appointed agencies, an asset no criminal organization could ever dream of. Most importantly, every single major news corporation has been, in the last 50 years or so, thoroughly infiltrated and co-opted by the higher echelons of power. Today, their globalized monopoly of world news makes them the single most powerful persuasion-machine ever known to mankind. In fact, their unchallenged control of information was a crucial player in the 9/11 plan: Most lower-level operatives involved in the execution of the plan were induced - much as the average ‘Joe Public’ - to believe in the televised version of the events.

Hence, the “too-many–people-involved” argument fails on two counts:

1: It is effectively disproved by historical precedents.
2: It does not account for the wide, unprecedented range of assets available to the 9/11 planners.

Simon Shack, January 11, 2010

[ N.B.please also see article "The Memorial Scams"under heading "Main Articles", at:

Regards, onebornfree.

Monday, January 4, 2010

9/11: "False In One- False in All"

Elaine to Jerry: "Fake, Fake, Fake!"

Yes, I agree with Mr Shack.[see previous post"Deconstructing the Grand Deception"]

After at first appearing patently absurd,thanks to his unrelenting work it now seems to me to be very obvious , that most, if not all of the footage aired by the media on 9/11 was faked on computers, as were all "amateur" videos showing aircraft [regardless of actual airspeed capabilties at 700 feet above sea level], magically penetrating buildings in one piece without slowing down, and without any parts whatsoever [let alone most!], shearing off at impact :-) ; as was all media footage showing two 1300 feet high, 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings magically collapsing from top to bottom in 10- 17 seconds [depending on which "live"collapse version you happen to time], and as was [by logical extension] all of the footage of WTC building 7's collapse later that day.

Furthermore, all supposed "live" broadcast network imagery of the Pentagon [i.e. post- "terrorist attack" ], also appears to have been fake imagery generated by computers, as Mr Shacks close analysis appears to show.

And if that was not enough, it now it looks highly likely that many, if not all, of the supposed tower victims names were faked on computers as well, along with their alleged photographic likenesses.

As the female lead, in "Seinfeld", Elaine, tells Jerry when discussing her supposed orgasms with her former lover: "Fake, fake , fake, fake!"

In other words, fake plane into building videos, fake collapse videos, and now, fake victim lists.


The Predicable Reaction- "It's a threat To our movement!"

At the same time, the reality is that the typical, violently negative reactions to even considering this type of information as valid,[Mr Shack's video presentation is available for viewing and consideration here : ], is wholly predictable , given that the reality of ALL movements, regardless of whether it be the "Ron Paul movement", the "libertarian movement", the "911 truth movement [eg the "loose change/prison planet crowd"] or something else entirely [i.e any other political or quasi- political "movement you care to name - take your pick!], ALWAYS end working actively to suppress information that is seen as a threat to that "movement" .

A true search for truth becomes secondary and eventually counterproductive and therefor subordinate to the furtherance of the group agenda [usually political in nature] .

Therefor, more than likely, for political[i.e group] reasons, Mr Shacks research will continue be rejected and/or suppressed within the "Ron Paul movement", the "Libertarian movement", the "Austro- Anarcho- Capitalist" movement, the "911 Truth movement", etc. etc. as well as elsewhere, even, dare I say it, within any future so-called "September Clues Truth Movement" that might come into existence "down the road" :-)

However, all of those predictable "foaming at the mouth"and accompanying verbal and "logical" contortions/denials etc. of Mr Shack's work ARE highly amusing, to say the least! :-)


For those that do not know, there is a simple legal principle named "false in one false in all"[try "googling" that phrase], whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false then they have the incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that person/entity.

Therefor,and according to that principle, and since we each have to be both judge and jury at this stage, should any of us find any one part of the government/media 911 story to be false, then it is perfectly acceptable for that person to then conclude that all "evidence" supplied by the government/media and/or "witnesses", is either knowingly false, or simply to be distrusted, until definitively proven otherwise.

Attention: Jim Fetzer/ Loose Change/Prison Planet/ Ace Baker/ Judy Woods/ Morgan Reynolds! Etc.

This judge to jury instruction would seem to be particularly relevant for the supporters of the 911 theories of "Loose Change" and "PrisonPlanet",website , as well as for the Jim Fetzer/Ace Baker/ Morgan Reynolds /Judy Woods supporters .

All of those researchers/scientists, and more besides, at this time continue to believe that it is acceptable, logical and procedurally correct [both scientifically and legally] to automatically assume the truth and veracity of certain sequences of media video footage [e.g the building collapse sequences], without definitive proof, , while rejecting other sequences as fake, possibly because it continues to suit their present agendas.

Regards, onebornfree.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

9/11- "Deconstructing the Grand Deception"

Deconstructing the Grand Deception by Simon Shack - December 31, 2009


If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and - of course - a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential. Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people”. Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was orchestrated, supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses.

WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON 9/11 ( the deceptive imagery )

No unauthorized, private imagery was captured on September 11, 2001. Most - if not all - of the imagery we have of that morning’s events is prefabricated and/or manipulated. The September Clues video research – and many similar independent studies - have amply demonstrated the mainstream media’s unfettered complicity – insofar as the live TV broadcasts are concerned. The 9/11 morning broadcasts were, by and large, digital computer-animations and all successive, so-called “amateur” video snippets (featuring crashing planes or collapsing towers) have likewise been methodically exposed as a series of poorly crafted forgeries. The defining, real-life ‘action shots’ (fake plane crashes and real tower collapses) of the day were simply not meant to be captured on film - much less aired on television: As it is, no real footage of those crucial time windows is to be found. To be sure, the existence of specific, military-grade technology able to achieve this precise aim is well documented. In all likelihood, electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF) routinely employed in war zones was employed, causing the temporary jamming of all unshielded camera equipment *. With no real footage being captured, the TV networks could ‘safely’ broadcast their substitute, artificial imagery of the morning’s events.
* (see : )

WHAT DID HAPPEN ON 9/11 (the tower collapses)

The ‘ground operations’ in Lower Manhattan called for a coordinated demolition of the entire WTC complex (9 buildings in all). Just what type of explosive forces caused this destruction is hotly debated among scientists galore – yet it is but a secondary and ultimately doomed endeavor - since there is no certifiably authentic rubble nor any authentic imagery to examine. We may however assume (as of the events’ timeline) that the demolition process started a full hour after the alleged “plane strikes”, leaving plenty of time to evacuate the area. The briskly displaced bystanders – as well as more distant eyewitnesses - would have had very slim chances to make out the precise dynamics of the collapses as, most plausibly, smokescreens (military obscurants) started blocking the WTC from view. The time-window of the Lower Manhattan evacuation was “filled in” with two convenient, yet blatantly phony “Distraction Dramas” : The Pentagon and Shanksville mock-events. These two diversions also helped sway the attention away from the absurd absence of helicopter rescues at the WTC. As it is, the improbable tale of 3,000 souls trapped for up to 100 minutes in the WTC top floors (with no rooftop rescues - “due to locked access doors”) may have a simple explanation: The WTC towers were empty. To be sure, all photographs and video snippets depicting people (or silhouettes thereof) falling down the side of the WTC’s have also been comprehensively exposed as digital forgeries. Only time will tell whether any people really were killed on 9/11 - and under what circumstances - but, as things stand, the bulk of available evidence suggests otherwise.


Perhaps – and probably - none. A ‘fanciful’ contention? No. Not if measured against the thoroughly fanciful, grotesquely contrived and conflicting 9/11 ‘victim memorials’. A close scrutiny of the numerous available listings of alleged 9/11 victims provides countless indications that they are, by and large, outright fabrications. Most of them are still easily accessible on the internet by the general public – yet some have been (‘mysteriously’) shut down. Of course, if it’s true that the WTC was fully evacuated, thus follows that the many memorials listing the 9/11 victims must, in turn, be fabricated too. As elaborated below, that is precisely what they appear to be. The 9/11 victim memorials simply do not stand up to scrutiny and comparison. The sheer bulk of inconsistencies and absurdities pervasive in those unseemly listings unveils their true nature : Just another piece of the Grand Deception. Let us see why, point by point :

MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(1): The totals’ nonsense

At a first glance at the various 9/11 memorials, we see that each and every one reports a different casualty toll. Here’s a selection of total figures, all ostensibly meant to represent official and definitive listings of all victims of 9/11 for WTC, Pentagon and “4 flights”- (minus the “19 hijackers”) :

SEPT11th memorial: “3.181”

CNN memorial: “2.985”

FOX News: “2812”,2933,62779,00.html,2933,62151,00.html (full list)

La Repubblica ( Sept11,’09 ): “2.752”

America Forever memorial: “2.467”

As absurd as this may seem, it is a fact that more than 8 years after 9/11, there is still no consensus whatsoever on the total death toll. Indeed, the first and last of the above-listed memorials show a discrepancy of a full 714 names! These are entirely verifiable figures – in full public view. Of course, even a discrepancy of only 2 or 3 victims should be considered unacceptable at this time. Let’s hope that the National 9/11 Memorial, currently under construction in Manhattan will finally reveal to the world the exact number of the 9/11 victims... Whatever that figure will be (and which names will be retained or discarded), the fact remains that for all of 8 years virtually all memorials have displayed wildly conflicting casualty tolls.

Most will remember that, in the days, weeks if not months following 9/11, the news media kept reporting what, admittedly, were speculative casualty figures ( the “20,000 victims” soon became “10,000”). Yet the first, official casualty toll was still a hefty “6,729” (New York Times). Then, a full 12 days after the event, Major Giuliani went on record with an “estimated 6,333 victims ”, a figure which was touted for some time before gradually - and inexplicably - dwindling to less than half that figure. How, one must ask, could it possibly take weeks to obtain reasonably accurate figures of the WTC tenants’ missing employees? Now, this was no tsunami sweeping unfathomably populated coastlines of Indonesia, Thailand or Sri Lanka; these were two confined building-collapses in civilized Manhattan! Undeniably, in the shocked post-disaster climate, the inflated death tolls effectively boosted the drama and the public outrage over the “murderous Binladen attacks”. However, as weeks went by, Mayor Giuliani’s “6,333” estimate started raising a few eyebrows. In time, the news media came up with a ‘shocking news story’ : As the tale went, a horde of greedy, despicable fraudsters were usurping the 9/11 compensation funds claiming the loss of “non-existing, totally made-up relatives”…

A long string of such scams were reported - & denounced with righteous outrage – for weeks on end. Ultimately, even though a whopping total of 400 such “callous con men schemes” were reported, it did little to account for – or even remotely explain – Giuliani’s previous “6,333”estimate (of September23, 2001). The Grand Deception was already creaking and - unbeknown to most – initiating its own, inevitable collapse.
Now, some people will argue that these wild inaccuracies were brought about by “the havoc and confusion” surrounding the 9/11 events. Fine. Let us not argue about it - and agree for now on at least one incontrovertible fact: Between the first official NYT death toll figure (6729) and the figure found on, for instance, the “America Forever” memorial (2467), we have a discrepancy/margin of error of 4262 ‘units’. These are plain and simple arithmetics. Lastly, let it be said that the vast majority of "9/11 victims" are NOT listed in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index). The few that ARE to be found listed on the SSDI are usually names that have been cited in the press, i.e. more 'prominent' and 'public' victims...

MEMORIAL PROBLEMS(2): The ghost names nonsense

So, how do these conflicting death tolls translate as one takes a close look at the various memorials? Does that mean we may find random, ‘ghost’ victims listed on some memorials, complete with tributes and obituaries, who are simply missing on others? Yes. Is there a significant amount of such nonsensical examples, such as to rule out ‘innocent sloppiness’ on the part of the various memorial curators? Yes. Let’s take a look, for instance, at the “Wall of Americans” memorial. At the very top of letter “A”, we find two people named “AALYIGH”.

user posted image

Inexplicably, the two “AALYIGH”s (as indeed many other names) are found only in some memorials and are absent from others (such as CNN’s). Now, imagine for a minute that your surname is “Aalyigh”. Would you not try contacting (in over 8 years) the ‘offending’ 9/11 memorials and have them correct their listings? Who are the “Aalyigh’s”? Or perhaps we should ask : why are the “Aalyigh’s” to be found only in selected memorials? Is there indeed anyone called “Aalyigh” on this planet apart from Diana Aalyigh (Die-In-A-Lie?) and Justin Aalyigh (Just- In-A-Lie?). One may be tempted to surmise that some brave whistleblower was trying to tell us some truth about 9/11: “it’s all AALYIGH”.
Interestingly, the Wall of Americans memorial has now been shut down. This is the message we may find on the blank internet page which ‘explains’ its sudden closure:

user posted image

Then, staying with letter “A”, there is the case of Mrs. “Cici AADA”, another of the many ‘ghost names’ to be found bouncing around the various 9/11 memorials. Now, if you google “AADA” you will bump right into the “American Academy of Dramatic Arts”.
A coincidence, perhaps. However, since a great deal of characters rotating within the 9/11 saga (Mark Humphrey, Gary Welz, et al) have been exposed as professional actors, one may reasonably wonder whether this also could be the work of a heroic whistleblower. The fact remains that “Cici (See-See?) AADA” and both the “AALYIGH’s” are only to be found on a few 9/11 memorials – and are simply missing on others (most notably the CNN memorial).

There are plenty more examples of ‘ghost names’ appearing only in selected 9/11 memorials. To list them all in this article (with comprehensive cross-comparisons between all the lists) is not realistic and would surely be a tedious read. So let’s just compare three alphabetical groups (Q, X, Y, Z) which contain moderate amounts of names (so that the reader may easily check out these facts personally).Below is a list of 9/11 memorials; for each one we have the number of people listed under the surname initials “Q”, “X”, “Y” & “Z”:

CNN memorial :
Q:8 X:0 Y:20 Z:24

Q:8 X:0 Y:20 Z:25

Q:7 X:0 Y:15 Z:19

Q:16 X:0 Y:25 Z:26

FOX memorial :,2933,62151,00.html
Q:9 X:0 Y:21 Z:24

Q:9 X:0 Y:13 Z:23

Q:11 X:4 Y:24 Z:26

The prosaic nonsense

A common aspect of the various 9/11 memorials are the consistently sappy and contrived tributes supposedly posted by families, co-workers and friends. We are talking about thousands of brief writings which, of course, require some steady patience to sift through. However, and for what it’s worth, I can personally testify that it’s hard to find any 9/11 tribute graced with any ring of authenticity. The prevalent impression is that they are written by the same person – or at best – by a gang of bored, unimaginative novelists. Naturally, some will retort that this is a ‘subjective’, personal interpretation; I can only encourage everyone to spend some time reading those tributes for themselves. Taken together, those tributes read like an endlessly reshuffled concoction of mawkish and tear-jerking rhetoric. I’m confident that anyone armed with a critical mind – and a healthy sense of humor - will actually enjoy sifting through these tributes as an eye-opening, entertaining and slightly surreal experience. Best of all, this ‘enjoyment’ comes with an odd sense of relief and appeasment as one gradually comes to realize that:
1. The 9/11 memorials are all in conflict with each other.
2. The 9/11 memorials are anything but credible tributes to real victims of a real terror attack.
3. Perhaps, in the light of these facts, few - or nobody - died in the “9/11 attacks”.

(Author’s appeal: I welcome anyone asserting to be a family member of a 9/11 victim to come forward with documentation – such as would be admissible in a court of law - of their loved one’s existence and passing. I can be reached on my private e-mail posted here: ).

: The portrait-morphing evidence
Three main observations can be drawn from a methodical cross-scrutiny of the many 9/11 memorials which feature portraits of the “victims” – henceforth referred to as “entities”:

1: Most of the “entities” found in the memorials are represented with two - and no more than two apparently different portraits.

2: When two seemingly different portraits of a given entity are compared, they reveal more often than not striking similarities in facial expression, pose, angle/perspective, lighting, reflections.

3. Striking similarities are also observed between separate, often alphabetically adjacent entities of same or different sex. While a few such cases might be expected in a list of 2500+ portraits, the sheer frequency of such instances featuring seemingly ‘cloned’ facial attributes cannot reasonably (in a statistical sense) be ascribed to ‘coincidence’ or ‘happenstance’.

Obviously, this topic needs to be visualized by the reader since it deals with photographic issues. Please look up this illustrated article for image-supported descriptions of this issue:
(Other interesting issues related to the metadata - or ‘exif’ data - embedded in all the “.jpg” picture files will, in time, be comprehensively expounded and added to this article.)
For a comprehensive study of the 9/11 memorials, please read the “Vicsim Report” by Hoi Polloi:

Some of the more prominent ‘casualties’ of 9/11 - such as “Flight93-hero Todd M. Beamer”- have long been exposed as stolen identities from previously deceased namesakes . The Barbara Olson story also turned out to be a fraud when Ted Olson (George W. Bush’s solicitor general) was caught altering 3 times his tale of her alleged phone calls from “Flight77”. Similarly, “the 9/11 victim number 0001”, Father Mychal Judge, was another faith-based saga for devout believers: At least three different versions of the causes/circumstances of his death were published by the news media – and the evacuation of his corpse from the WTC has also been exposed as another staged photo-op. In other words, the stories surrounding the 9/11 “VIP” casualties are riddled with so many questions as to be divested of any sort of credibility. With such an abundance of deceptive, media-promoted bunkum, it is perfectly reasonable to question every single official newsstory to emerge from the events of September 11, 2001.

Article originally appeared here, about 1/3rd of the way down the page.